U.S. Gov. allegedly commits Felony with S&W Agreement, Lets Sue!

ernest2

New member
Any LAWYERS---PLEASE READ CAREFULLY!!!


Justin wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Most of you know by now that Smith & Wesson has reached a settlement
> agreement with the Clinton administration regarding how they
> manufacture and distribute their firearms. While most people on the
> side of the Second Amendment see this as a travesty, which it is, I
> feel this may actually be the best thing to happen to gun rights since
> the Declaration of Independence.
>
> Simply put, in drafting this agreement, Smith & Wesson, The Treasury
> Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the
> Clinton Administration, et al, have broken the law. In fact, they are
> guilty of having committed a felony.
>
> The entities most affected by this crime are Glock, Kel-Tec and
> Taurus; the legal departments of those three companies should find
> this most interesting.
>
> We need to look at the agreement itself, to see how this crime has
> unfolded, and more so, that a crime has even been committed in the
> first place.
>
> Let us begin by looking at Section II.A.1:
>
> “II. A. Authorized distributors and dealers.
> 1. The manufacturer parties to this Agreement may sell only to
> authorized distributors and authorized dealers. In order to qualify to
> become an authorized distributor or authorized dealer, the distributor
> or dealer must agree in writing to:”
>
> What this means is that in order to sell any Smith & Wesson products,
> the dealer must be “authorized” by Smith & Wesson, and abide by
> certain rules. In fact, the dealer must agree in writing, making this
> a written contract between Smith & Wesson and any dealer who wishes to
> sell Smith & Wesson products. This in and of itself is not a crime.
> Many companies make arrangements between themselves and their
> retailers. However, in this case, this is only the beginning.
>
> The issue here is what a dealer must agree to. This is defined in part
> by Section II.A.1.h:
>
> “II. A. 1. h. Not sell ammunition magazines that are able to accept
> more than 10 rounds regardless of the date of manufacture, not sell
> any semi-automatic assault weapon as defined in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(30)
> regardless of the date of manufacture, provide safety locks and
> warnings with firearms, as specified in Section 1 above, and sell only
> firearms that comport with the design criteria of this Agreement.”
>
> This paragraph provides just a few of the things a dealer must do in
> order to be an “Authorized Smith & Wesson Dealer” and thus allowed to
> sell Smith & Wesson products. While forcing a dealer to provide a
> safety lock and warning with every firearm sold just to be allowed to
> sell Smith & Wesson products is questionable, this is not where the
> criminal intent lies. In fact, prohibiting dealers from selling high
> capacity magazines or so-called “pre-ban” firearms in order to be
> allowed to sell Smith & Wesson products is not my focus either. While
> that certainly smacks of unconstitutionality, that in and of itself
> would be a difficult case to win in court. (Perhaps some attorney
> reading this would like to give it a shot?) My concern is the last
> part, which reads “and sell only firearms that comport with the design
> criteria of this Agreement.”
>
> We must ask which firearms a dealer would not be allowed to sell. By
> further reading what types of firearms a manufacturer would be
> prohibited from selling, we can determine what types of firearms do
> not “comport with the design criteria of this Agreement” and thus
> would not be allowed to be sold by any dealer who wishes to sell Smith
> & Wesson products.
>
> This brings us to Section I.D.:
>
> “I. D. Illegal firearms. The manufacturer parties to this Agreement
> shall not sell firearms that can be readily converted to an illegal
> firearm, that is, a weapon designed in a manner so that with few
> additional parts and/or minimal modifications an owner can convert the
> firearm to an illegal fully automatic weapon; nor shall the firearms
> be designed so that they are resistant to fingerprints.”
>
> So, any dealer who wishes to sell Smith & Wesson products has to agree
> in writing to refrain from selling any firearm that can be readily
> converted to a fully automatic weapon, as well as any firearm that is
> resistant to fingerprints. Now, any gun owner with even a little
> mechanical knowledge knows that almost every semi-automatic firearm
> can be converted to fully automatic with “few additional parts and/or
> minimal modifications”. This is not at issue here, because it is so
> widespread and sweeping that it includes almost any semi-automatic
> firearm and thus is virtually unenforceable. What does matter is that
> dealers will be restricted from selling any firearm by any
> manufacturer which is resistant to fingerprints, if they want to sell
> Smith & Wesson products. This is where the ramifications of this
> agreement lie.
>
> I have been unable to find any legal definition of what “resistant to
> fingerprints” means. The best I could achieve were two bills in
> Florida (HB 789 and SB 1020). They stated that the legal definition of
> resistant to fingerprints meant that the firearm was constructed of a
> material or had a coating that “substantially prevented a law
> enforcement agency from identifying the holder of the gun by use of
> fingerprinting.” Not much help there. With the lack of a legal
> definition of what materials and coatings would be considered
> “fingerprint resistant” we must make an educated guess.
>
> Typically, the same materials and finishes that make a firearm
> corrosion resistant also make the firearm fingerprint resistant. This
> would include titanium, stainless steel and polymer framed firearms,
> as well as such finishes as tennifer.
>
> So, what does all this mean? Where is the crime? Well, what it means
> is that in order to sell Smith & Wesson products, a dealer must enter
> into a written contract and agree to not sell any firearm that is made
> of titanium, stainless steel, polymer, or that has a finish like
> tennifer. In other words, in order to sell a Smith & Wesson product, a
> dealer is forbidden from selling Taurus’s new titanium line, Kel-Tec’s
> handgun lines, as well as pretty much anything manufactured by Glock.
> This is an anti-trust violation and it is a felony. It is an attempt
> to force these manufacturers and their products out of the market. It
> would behoove Taurus, Kel-Tec and Glock to contact their respective
> States Attorneys and stop this anti- trust violation in its tracks.
>
> Furthermore, the government at various levels has engaged in a
> conspiracy to commit a felony, namely anti-trust violations, by
> encouraging Smith & Wesson to sign this agreement. Indeed, the
> Department of Housing and Urban Development’s own press release
> “PR00-61” states that “[Government agencies] will support giving a gun
> purchase preference to any gun maker adopting the new gun safety and
> dealer responsibility standards agreed to last week by gun maker Smith
> & Wesson, the Clinton Administration, local governments and attorneys
> general.” In other words, they are effectively bribing companies with
> government contracts to enter into an anti-trust violation, and using
> public funds to do it.
>
> Anyone who signed that agreement is prosecutable under anti-trust
> statutes, as well as their offices and administrations if they were
> acting on official behalf. So, you have anti-trust violations,
> conspiracy to commit a felony, and bribery. Plus, since this was
> funded by public money, you can add mismanagement of public funds as
> well.
>
> Who is guilty? Everyone involved. This astute list includes the
> following: Smith & Wesson; the Clinton Administration; the Department
> of the Treasury; the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
> Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo; White House
> Domestic Policy Advisor Bruce Reed; Senator Charles Schumer of New
> York; Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy of New York; Attorneys General J.
> Joseph Curran of Maryland, Eliot Spitzer of New York, and Richard
> Blumenthal of Connecticut; as well as various Mayors, City Districts,
> and Counties among others.
>
> Finally, and this is the icing on the cake, Smith & Wesson is owned by
> the British company, Tomkins PLC. So, what we have are foreign
> nationals working with the elected officials of our own government to
> undermine our constitutional rights by using bribery and conspiracy to
> commit felonies on American soil and force companies such Glock,
> Taurus and Kel-Tec out of business via illegal trade practices and
> anti- trust violations. In fact, our own government agents have
> promised public funds to foreign nationals (Tomkins PLC) via contracts
> with their subsidiary Smith & Wesson for the commission of a felony.
>
> What could possibly be better for those of us who are working to
> defend the Second Amendment? We have a variety of charges and
> defendants to choose from. I’m sure that with a little legal research
> (I am not an attorney) many more charges could be added as well.
> Possibly racketeering? Maybe the finances of those involved are
> vulnerable under the RICO statutes? If any non-profit groups were a
> party to these felonies and conspiracies, perhaps their NPO status
> could be revoked?
>
> Our opposition has made some serious errors and it is up to us to take
> advantage of them. We must use every avenue presented to us in order
> to win this war against our civil rights.
>
> Keep the faith,
> Justin Gramm Glenn V. Domingo
> { HYPERLINK "mailto:gizmonic@xnet.com" }gizmonic@xnet.com
> choirboy777@hotmail.com
>
> http://home.xnet.com/~gizmonic/themarch.html
 
Merely OUTSTANDING!

BIG BUMP!

------------------
BOYCOTT SLICK & WESSON

"To be wronged is nothing unless you continue to remember it."
Confucius
 
I dunno about this, guys. First of all, I've never heard anywhere else that Titanium, stainless steel or polymer resist fingerprints. Tenifer is especially suspicious, because the tenifer-treated surface is covered by a dull phosphate coating on Glocks anyway.

Second, if we try this, aren't we in essence asserting ourselves that all these guns resist fingerprints? Aren't we setting ourselves up for a ban on those products? I liken this to calling for "strict enforcement of the laws we already have on the books."

I like the idea of striking back, I just want to make sure we're all certain what we're doing. If we talk Taurus into saying that their guns are fingerprint-resistant and they get 'em banned, we'd be sorry.
 
I wish every gun I had was resistant to fingerprints. That way when I was fondling them I wouldn't have to wipe them off with an oily rag before I put them away. As we all know oily fingerprints promote rust on our fine guns.
 
A good post, but he's making it too complicated.

Here's a simpler plan:

Dealer must agree in writing that they will "sell only firearms that comport with the design criteria of this Agreement".

Here are some BASIC handgun design criteria that S&W agreed to:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>All must have a second "hidden" serial number.

<LI>All must be designed in such a way that children under 6 can not fire the gun (increase the trigger pull to 10 pounds, pistol grip too large for small hands, etc.)

<LI>All (whether single or double action) must have a feature that lowers the hammer without firing the cartridge.

<LI>Minimum barrel length of 3".

<LI>All must be at least 6" long and 4" high.

<LI>No new handguns may be able to accept (or be easily modified to accept) magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
</UL>

First of all, what handguns have "second 'hidden' serial numbers"? I could be wrong, but I don't know any that do.

You can go through the list and keep disqualifying handguns. What handguns are left? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there are any (especially since I think you lost them all back at the serial number issue).

Therefore, S&W dealers can only carry S&W handguns.
 
Justin is correctly pointing out that the S&W agreement itself violates the same anti-trust principles and laws now being used to threaten independent dealers who have decided to boycott S&W "products." (Glock and other firms sell "guns.")

This would make a good defense if any suit is ever filed against "the gun industry" to hold them responsible for the consequences of S&W's lack of sense and principles.

Good post.
 
Gwinney...

In the immortal words of His Billness...define "fingerprint resistant"

Are we talking non-corrosion...like stainless steel, nickel, plastic...which will still show a fingerprint, but won't corrode it into the body?

Or are we talking about something that won't "hold" the amino acid pattern of a fingerprint? One can "lift a print" from a textured surface with a simple spray of ninhydrin...not at all high-tech...been available for over 100 years.
So..the question is...are they against everything but blued steel? Thereby making it a PITA to keep clean and max value?
Has any manufacturer advertized that it won't take a print or that a print won't wreck the value?

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Forget the fingerprint issue.

Every single gun NAA sells just got "banned", via the size restrictions. Ditto American Derringer. Those two are run by some very pro-RKBA people. Lesse...several Ruger models are screwed, such as the 2" SP101s, though I wouldn't count on Bill.

If the NSSC or the NRA gave NAA and/or American Derringer legal support, they'd sue. They'd be the best plaintiffs I can think of.

Anyone else know of a strongly pro-RKBA US maker of SMALL guns?

Jim
 
DC, that's my point. Right now, antis believe there's such a thing as a "fingerprint resistant gun." We know better (because we're using their definition, which is that it doesn't show a fingerprint and the cops can't lift one.) So we argue back that they're morons.

Now, if we use the fingerprint-resistance angle that was advocated here, we have to reverse our position and say something we know is untrue--that all these other guns are "fingerprint resistant." Now, if the antis are saying that, and WE'RE saying that, who's left to remind people that it's all crap?
And in that case, how hard would it be for an enterprising young Republican to introduce and pass a bill to ban all these guns because they don't show fingerprints?

Besides, as has been pointed out, we can take the excellent concept and apply it better--concentrate on the other restrictions.
 
Fingerprints can be lifted from polymer frames by the Cyanoacrylate Process, Small Particle Reageant, magnetic powders and burnt masking tape.

From rubber grips by Iodine, Ninhydrin, Silver Nitrate, (possibly Gentian Violet) and Cyanoacrylate.

From blued steel with standard white or silver/grey powder, Small Particle Reagent and Cyanoacrylate.

Same with stainless, except use black or silver/red powder.

From titanium with magnetic fluorescing powders and SPR.

Wood requires standard powders, magentic powders, iodine, ninhydrine, silver nitrate and cyanoacrylate.

Ceramic with magnetic powders, ninhydrin and possibly Gentian Violet.

Did I miss any materials?

I think that lays to rest the "Fingerprint Resistant" codswallop.

LawDog



[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited April 06, 2000).]
 
dear fud, I got the original post as a email from my friend Justin. I am sure Justin will not mind if you post it at appropiate pro gun locations in good taste.

Justin's original intent was that it be distributed because it was distributed by Justin as a mass list email to pro firearm
people.

It is obvious that justin specifically wrote the article to be distributed widely and so we are helping him attain his objectives.

You have my permission also.

You can email justin at gizmonic@xnet.com
 
Back
Top